Posted on 11/14/2008 12:29:37 PM PST by atlbelle44
https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/CVFLPRDetail.aspx?Details=CV|2008-80000096|keyes|01/01/2008|12/31/2008|FilingDate|Asc|
http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf
The founders were of a completely different spirit. They were ready to hang to defend life and liberty in every circumstance.
Intelligent people who supported him will be embarrassed and angry that they were snookered.....The robots will do what ever he tells them to do on the text messages he is still sending them.
One of the best summations I've seen of the attitude of Republican "leaders" since 1994. A summary of why the Republican Party is now out of power.
“Of course he has problems of his own to deal with, in that regard.”
No, he doesn’t and never has.
“It is still an issue for the Court either way ...”
Without question, this whole deal is an AMAZING constitutional question.
It involves Constitution as written, law legislated in support thereof, and the concept of “original intent”.
It involves the written Constitution as follows:
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The question is whether issues NOT specifically addressed in law, as written, are delegated to Congress to sort out. See Federal Election Law, below.
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The question is whether the Founding Fathers intended to allow eligibility requirements verification.
1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The pertinent phrase is “redress of grievances”. Do the people have standing to make a case in absence of Congress or the Judiciary bringing one.
9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Do the people have standing?
10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If the Constitution does not specify eligibility verification, and there is no law to do so, do the people have the right to demand it?
Law:
Congress has established Electoral College law in support of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 and is listed as Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended). Specifically, the argument lies in Section 15.
It provides for objections to the electoral voting process, by members of Congress. It IS a way to disqualify electoral votes, but NOT necessarily the ONLY way. Also, it does NOT address the issue of a candidate’s eligibility verification, nor does it state that Congress has the SOLE power to raise objections and/or verify eligibility.
Does this law preclude eligibility verification of candidates by the people? It ONLY mentions “objections” by Congress - nothing else.
It allows for the disqualification of electors - but does not enumerate specific reasons. It makes NO mention of disqualification of candidates.
“Thank you for that. Fascinating stuff for the non-lawyers like me, though probably old hat for you guys.”
Thanks for the props - but I am not a lawyer ...
However, I have been reading the Constitution ever since the Kelo v. New London ruling by SCOTUS.
That was the emminent domain case where New London swiped citizen’s homes to give to developers so they could build swanky homes. It provided more tax revenue for New London and SCOTUS agreed.
IT WAS A TRAVESTY AND CLEARLY AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHER’S INTENT AS TO WHEN USE OF EMMINENT DOMAIN WAS APPROPRIATE.
The Founding Fathers ONLY wanted property taken for the public good - not to fatten developer’s wallets.
You are trying to argue your point with arguments that don't matter.
This is a black or white issue. There are no gray areas.
It doesn't matter if Palin or Bush, McCain or anyone else believes it or talks about it.
It actually doesn't matter if no one but one man fights this issue.
He (obama) is either eligible or not. He need to show proof of eligibility under the Constitution.
I am not saying this will happen. I am saying it should and We The People should demand it.
If the majority of the world tells you the sky is purple instead of blue, do you believe it to be purple because most people believe it?
I know what is right and I know what is wrong when I see it. Don't need anybody telling me what I see.
What is a WOT?
Just figgered it out - War On Terrorism ...
I have heard enough garbage from you too.
You can’t win if you are not playing by the rules.
Did you ever play a sport when you were younger? At least a pick-up game of baseball?
If someone is cheating then the game doesn’t count. How can someone beat someone who is cheating?
Here’s an example: in the Olympics...someone is doping or not from the country they are representing or whatever...just cheating. WELL THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED!
Even little kids understand this.
He might not be qualified and needs to prove he is. If he doesn’t prove it or is proven to not be eligible, then GAME OVER.
Go watch some little kids play baseball in the park and maybe you will understand how rules work.
Anyone can run - but they cannot assume the office unless they meet the qualifications for POTUS.
As for Biden being POTUS - read Post #495 ... it spells out the scenarios.
Again, bravo!
What a great video.
I asked the RNC why they cannot run Dr. Keyes and
was told “The country is not ready for Dr. Keyes”.
Do you think I can distribute that video?
:The following is an article on the non binding resolution from the Senate regarding McCain but how much credence it would have at SCOTUS I don’t know ...”
Non-binding resolutions get stacked up in Congress’ bathrooms in case they run out of TP.
They have no effect of force or law ...
You stated:
A long time ago, when the WOT first began, after we took out Saddam Hussein, and learned of all the horrors the Iraqi people endured, I wondered about the people of Iraq. How they came to the point that they would not fight the tyranny
Saddam was ruthless and cruel, the people were held in check through the fear (and the army) that Hussein created - they trembled before it.
I know that there was never a democracy there, but I know there was not always such cruelty (or I think I know). Why did these people allow themselves to be subjugated, why could they, with their large numbers, not fight to the death for the future of their Country?
Did they deserve their servitude because they would not act/could not act/tired of always having to act?
And I wonder. Will some woman in another country, years from now, wonder, why the people of the USA could not act, would not act...
________________________________________________
Well said. I had to repeat it.
This is what scares me right now. Wondering if enough of us will fight this?
I am not scared of the fight, I am scared of the ramifications if we don’t.
You:
“There is no reason not to enjoy these cases.”
_______________________________________________
Have you noticed what site you are posting on?
Your rundown of these “cases” bothers me more than the rino’s on this thread who feel this is a non-issue.
This is not fun to me. This is not my idea of entertainment.
Upholding the Constitution is important and serious to me and many Americans.
This isn’t a movie you are watching. This is my Country being stolen away.
Many men and women died for this nation and what it stands for.
And by the way, WE DO LOSE SOMETHING BY THEM. We will lose our Constitution and all that it stands for.
I think so. It’s been all over the web most of the year.
Where did you find the case posted? Link please.
Which case?
Keyes’s is:
http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf
Berg’s is:
I have not found Donofrio’s yet - all that is on SCOTUS cite is the application for a stay that Souter denied.
I think Donofrio’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is still pending - but don’t quote me ...
Great post!
and besides, it ‘s just darn fun to slowly unravel a long book of lies.
Every time a date, family member, or story line is researched another contradiction pops up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.